Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    May 1, 2012 11:30am-12:00pm PDT

11:30 am
i don't have any proof of the event and stories that i know firsthand and that some people have expressed. >> the program that we are proposing, it specifically addresses the issue for patients in the emergency room. some of them have substance- abuse issues and some need to be stabilized on medication. some of them go to other kinds of treatment programs. those people can do that under clinical supervision elsewhere. if we take those people away, there will be more room for the people that really do need the psychiatric -- >> are they being evaluated? got his program will work for that purpose, too.
11:31 am
>> just show up at the emergency room. >> how does that work? and do we send them somewhere else, or do they go through the process? >> she is the one that put the program together. >> when a patient comes in, they have to be cleared. once they are cleared, we're going to be hiring a social worker and that will be connected to the cpmc. that will determine whether not they can johann and identify other program.
11:32 am
it will be the discharge process to the door street or any other facility. they will work case by case. i believe that the way that we were in the emergency area, they try to bring them back if they can. that is going to determine whether or not they go into the psych bed. >> the only issue is making sure they have access to those beds. that is my only concern. >> we can work through that on the issue of this program and make sure that they receive those beds. commissioner borden: they need to add a bunch of beds, i want to make sure that --
11:33 am
>> because there is not capacity utilization, it should be capacity when necessary for individuals to come for that process. they would also have homes like consoles. >> st. luke's will be transferred to cpmc? >> that is the determination of the consoles. -- consult. we have-nots worked on this social work. -- we have not worked ont h the social work. commissioner miguel: thank you for clearing up some of mine. i appreciate the comments on the
11:34 am
san francisco consortium of clinics, particularly as to the tenderloin, the manner in which they will work through that through the innovation find. -- fund. you have covered that to a great extent and i appreciate the comments, those of psych care. this business i have to obviously repeat some of what i said at a previous hearing. i am intimately familiar with working with smith bad that the jewish home out on silver. places like san francisco who hours, and another facility.
11:35 am
i have to repeat the have to be able to handle the beds. if it is someone else's control or lease or ownership. as long as the health care question. we will look at any final iteration in a few months. will that take an eir? the master plan? >> we don't know yet. away it is shaping up as that it might not.
11:36 am
commissioner miguel: a persona -- i presume there would be some people that would try to make that. we would not see a master plan in less than two years finalized in any manner. i would not like to hold things up for that length of time at all. on the health care and, my experience with close family and friends over the last two years wilth serious types of medical things is that i do understand the concept of the type of facilities that are necessary if
11:37 am
i can put them that way. and if you look around at smaller communities and smaller areas, they have to use facilities such as cpmc is attempting to build here in order to supplement their local facilities when they get into a more dire consequence. even facilites such as kaiser which is large, specializes at some of the bay area facilities in some type of treatment and observations. i am a member of kaiser and i
11:38 am
have gone through that. because of having all of these in the very close and immediate area, they have chosen that route rather than come to us and build a 200 or 300 ft tall hospital. the concept is very similar. we will have comments on other sections. commissioner moore: i remain surprised that after as many months as we have heard him who had discussed this particular project, many of the repeatedly stated questions by the community itself remain as vaguely answered as they have from the very beginning. in the beginning we did not have st. luke's. i think that as a major victory
11:39 am
and i believe that that facility is not what i want to talk about at the moment. the issue of charity care remains hon specifically answered. it is kind of mention that it would be operated equally vague where there will be community providers, a neighborhood health facilities and innovation fund that is administered by three groups. the reality of the project and program has not answered. i believe it is a formulated a question that the community has given us over the months. there is still no answer forthcoming and it leaves me rather surprised.
11:40 am
it made me listen more carefully. i do make a mental note that there is still a major disconnect in areas where i will leave -- they come from distinctly different positions on this issue. i still have not heard the clear commitment specifically to ask questions that really spread over the entire city. commissioner antonini: i don't know if we can move on to the next category, but i wanted to comment on commissioner moore's question.
11:41 am
it seems very clear to me. we did a comparison peace with stanford, lucille, and on charity care, and this is a development agreement. $3 million, one time charitable care. the medical center, $86 million commitment annually. we don't know what the ongoing rate might have been, but that is what is in the contract. community well thus, we go from 4,000,001 tim and 20 millio 40 4 million one time to 20 million. we are not sure what was negotiated separately.
11:42 am
i think it was a year ago, if i am not mistaken. that is the information i have. i think it is very clear that it is pretty extraordinary. can we go on the questions of other areas? >> i wanted to make a comment on health care. [laughter] thank you for the offer. [laughter] in all these categories, it may not be the perfect end-all deal we have come to, but i think the innovative one is an innovative way to approach some of the issues. i think that the questions are not totally answered, but they have that addressed.
11:43 am
cpmc is not the only hospital health-care network in san francisco. i am interested to see what the master plan looks like city- wide, and i think that this plan, if it goes forward, will put us at a better spot. i think there has been some progress, according to certain groups, agencies and individuals, but we get a step closer. if you would like to talk about transportation, we can start off with you, commissioner antonini. commissioner antonini: i wanted to know that it was possible to include a demand management plan as part of the cu's. >> that is not currently included in the conditions of approval. we're happy to include that and
11:44 am
think it would be a great addition. commissioner antonini: my plan would be that when a motion is made, it would include part of the motion. >> we did get a request from the neighborhood association as it relates to the campus to further elaborate on their construction management plan so that they be provided with a draft version before the final isaac before they can critique it. just to give the community a little more and put into that. commissioner antonini: sounds reasonable to me. there are a couple things that i would include at this point. those are my main point on transportation, i believe. it was the part of the transportation demand management plan.
11:45 am
commissioner borden: i am glad that he brought that up because i was going to bring that out. i know that all that kind of stuff has been discussed. i think we can include the language about looking at the construction drawings, they are being called in the cu portion. the conditions of approval the create the communities -- >> it was to expand this idea of the community and advisory group. what they are doing for the davis campus for the construction when they have final contest and construction plan.
11:46 am
>> it is a final document, that is why they wanted the draft version to review to that they can critique it before it comes final. it is kind of an ongoing and fluid process. commissioner borden: it will also circulate that same kind of document. >> you will be including these in the motion that the advisor regroups on the long-term campuses, california, pacific, it will be proposed in the future project at those are in the development agreement. they'll leave the projects that are getting entitled now, we are
11:47 am
using the conditions of approval. they will now be required -- using the conditions of approval. >> in terms of the same document, to make that available in the way that the public makes sense. commissioner borden: also on transportation, if we're going to make a motion, there should be really strong language of around the transportation authority to really look at how they manage priority projects moving forward.
11:48 am
if there is any way to look at the bus lane that is being moved and maybe the parking lane on the other side, i don't know, but some sort of way to create prioritization for transit at the same time that you are doing -- >> i think since you are approving the project, the best you can probably do is to do exactly what you said and have the motion in included the urging to the city agencies to do what you had said -- commissioner borden: it sounded like they hadn't really thought through that. and the fact that is going to be
11:49 am
that way for three or four years. >> i feel fairly confident that a lot of the detailed planning for that is coming, and they are aware of the issue had multiple solutions. >> i know that we're hearing about it on the tenth, but as the plans unfold, it will be helpful. it sounded like two or three years, though. you are correct, it would be a length of time. it is a long time.
11:50 am
commissioner borden: those were my major questions. commissioner miguel: i appreciated the information we received today regarding transportation. the last time we got a shrug of the shoulders. anything we got today was better. the parking lane, they got a major discrepancy there. although there is nothing we can do about it immediately. it does pose a difficult problem, particularly the fact that there is going to have to be more work that is presently
11:51 am
estimated regarding -- let alone, i think it will be longer to work on that. that is all i have to say, i am glad we did not just get a struggle of the shoulders today. commissioner moore: i have a question for you. medical institutions require one parking space, alternative for these were feet of space occupied by sleeping rooms. my understanding on the campus,
11:52 am
it exceeds that by far. it was recommended in light of the fact that we are in the middle of adding -- we have the entire city network of bus routes, that led the department to recommend that. >> in the high level project, code compliance in terms of parking at the cathedral campus , there are various methodologies for calculating, as you mentioned. it landed on the the zoning administrator. the use of the occupied area, since there are some sort of unique additional requirements like wider corridors and things of that nature, these and in the administrator and i worked closely on that area of the project. one thing to point out is the
11:53 am
medical office building, it is within the planning co the within a hundred feet of a given property provide the off side parking garage. they are to satisfy the additional parking requirements triggered by the conversion of 1375 from office. commissioner moore: wider corridors don't calculate into that calculation. they would be patient rooms, so the corridor issue doesn't quite matter. it is between you and designing a administrator quite a bit.
11:54 am
>> if i may jump then, there is no maximum in dakota. -- in the code. no minimum requirement. >> part of the decision on this is the drastic difference based on the square footage of sleeping room. that was part of his decision in interpreting the cut. commissioner moore: the next question is perhaps addressed to mr. king. i heard in this presentation that he was widening the size and because of the need to be operating partially under the sidewalk under the correct interpretation.
11:55 am
>> the sidewalks are supposed to be widened on post, not on gary. commissioner moore: a hospital goes underneath the sidewalk? got there are facilities that go underneath the sidewalk. commissioner moore: the only thing i like to remind, normally the city was trying to move away from the side wall. we had a case on bush street where people talked about eliminating early 1900 freight elevators where there was a big discussion that this should not be in a building for these facilities underneath the public right of way.
11:56 am
not many people walking, the majority walk on either frankland oin or venice. >> can i clarify on the building? the existing building goes on to lament to existing parking garages underground. in the future building will be limited to the property lines not including the sidewalks with the exception of the tunnel that crosses vaness, and gary street that will be like pipes. it will not extend beyond the property line. the wyden sidewalk itself is widened on post street. why take the parking lane and
11:57 am
the bus line? you need to demolish the entire side walk and you are automatically and the driving. >> my last question is the tunnel. for the exclusive views of people in the medical building in the hospital and vice versa. at every point, if it is difficult to cross the street in one cycle. i've basically get there when the number is already at zero. they are biased and i think they will stay that way.
11:58 am
>> it would not be convenient. the two levels below grade with a below grade level at the hospital at both of those buildings. the publican entered both of those buildings, it would not be your first choice across venice avenue. commissioner moore: thank you. commissioner sugaya: i think i know the answer to this, but i will ask anyway. at today's paper, there was an article on a 400 ft high rise that is being proposed. the article seemed to imply that the environmental review ha was already under way. i don't know if it is in the
11:59 am
department or not. is there any kind of ceqa something that says there can be any kind of the way the cumulative impacts are, is there any kind of retroactive mitigation that can come about? or if the highrises going to make the traffic even worse that it is, is that right? >> someone from environmental planning will answer that. it comes as a community planning exemption. >commissioner
left
right